August 07, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra III

BLOGGERS VS. DEMS: Major Leaugers?

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly asks, “If Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman in Tuesday's Connecticut primary, will it mean that blogs have truly broken into the big time?” Drum goes on to quote Publius at Law and Policis:

if Joe goes down this week, I don’t think that blogs will have had all that much to do with it. It’s hard to keep this in mind sometimes, but most people simply don’t know anything about blogs. To be clear, blogs are certainly helping. But Joe is beating himself just fine, thank you. … But, because people like Wittman, TNR, and even the Lieberman campaign have harped on about those crazy bloggers throughout the campaign, they are inflating the power of blogs in people’s minds. And as a result, a Lamont victory will create a perception that blogs are far more important than they are (particularly among party insider types who do keep up with blogs). Putting aside the question of whether a Lamont victory is a net positive or negative for the Party (I think positive), it’s going to be an enormous victory for the blogosphere as an institution, thanks in no small part to the wails and cries of people like Wittman. The upshot is that, when the smoke clears this week, blogs are going to have a bigger place at the Party table going into future elections. Probably a bigger one than they deserve. But hey, I’ll take it. Can't be worse than who's already there.

Drum concludes: “That sounds about right to me. We're in an odd situation where bloggers like Atrios and Kos are trying to downplay the influence of blogs while mainstream pundits are trying to exaggerate it. Both sides have their reasons, but the end result is that the underlying reality doesn't matter much anymore. In the same way that all the chatter about "who won" a presidential debate is more important than the debates themselves, the chatter about the power of the blogs is probably more important than whether they really had any power to begin with. Like it or not, they do now.”

Atrios follows the debate, promises a longer article on the subject later and writes: “Blogs mattered as a tool for local activists, but not so much bloggers in the sense of "known blogs with big traffic."

Also keeping tabs on the discuission, Michael Crowley at TNR argues that at minimum bloggers have helped set the parameters of the debate: “Sometimes the impact has more of a bank-shot quality, but it's no less effective: Yesterday the Hartford Courant, exercising a dubious sense of proportionality, ran an entire story about Lieberman's refusal to appear on the "Colbert Report," making Lieberman look like a big ol' scaredy-cat. But why does Colbert care enough about Lieberman to make a big show of inviting him on in the first place? The anti-Joe frenzy generated by the blogs, of course. … While I despise the savage tone many bloggers adopt towards Lieberman, I'm not saying there's anything sinister about this. As far as I know, pro-Lamont bloggers haven't harassed and intimidated Connecticut reporters the way Republicans did in the 2004 South Dakota Senate race. But I'm sure their impact on coverage has been far greater. So the next time you hear someone like Kos downplay the role he played in this race, take it with a grain of salt.”

Posted by Conn Carroll at August 7, 2006 04:37 PM